LABOUR AND THE FARMER

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2724, 24 April 1924, Page 4

LABOUR AND THE FARMER

GIVING THEMSELVES AWAY

(Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)

In some recent articles of ours dealing with the N.Z. Labour Party’s Land policy we have shown how this socialist party is engaged in covering up its real programme and endeavouring to cat<jh the working farmers with a lot of specious promises that cannot be fulfilled. Our contention has been that the Red advocates have been playing the part of “artful dodgers” by seeking to persuade the people that they are aiming merely at moderate reform whilst they are actually aiming at a land policy of revolution to dipossess all private land-holders and make them mere serfs of the State. It has been denied that they are practicing evasion—the truth will out, however —in the “N.Z. Worker” 9th., April 1924, a member of the party writes as follows: — A PLAIN ADMISSION.

“To The Editor, Sir.—lt is obvious that if Labour is to get the reins of government, we must win the farmers to our side. So we are glad to see that our M.Ps. are touring round the country. But what prospect is there of gaining their support with our present programme?" Can we show them that it, is to their interest to join up with us? There is one point that will neutralise all our efforts, and set the farmers against us as soon as they find it out: we propose to i take away from them the Freehold. Not at once, perhaps, but gradually. Now,l don’t deny that there is much' to be said for the State Leasehold. I supported it myself years ago when Mackenzie was legislating on these lines. But rightly or wrongly the farmers will not have it. And the “Welfare League” knows it, and had an article in our local newspaper. I, in the absence of a better, am champion in its columns for Labour, and found that I could not reply as I would have liked, to their article. We were “artful dodgers” because we tried to hide the damning fact that we were against the Freehold. Of course I "did reply to it, and “dodged” the point as best I could. But I didn’t like it. I would have wished to deny such a damaging statement. Let me te.ll you a tale: One of our M,Ps. was staying with me and mentioned that he was building a house in town. I asked him, was it freehold. No, he said, it was a rotten lease. Oh, I said, what was the matter with it? (With much annoyance) “There are so many bothering, pin-pricks.” Yes, that’s just it, and the farmer does not like the prospect. Yet my friend the M.P. could not see the application. As though they State as landlord could give leases without those bothering pin-pricks. It can’t he done; if there is a lease, then there must be conditions. Anyhow the farmer thinks so, until we can convince him to the contrary. Besides, the Leasehold is bad from the State’s point of view also. Consider the expense of administration, and the army of officials—-and the bribery and corruption Yours, etc., (Signed) E. S. DUKES.

It is not only in regard to the Freehold that the Fed party has been seeking to cover its tracks. The official platform says “that no privately owned land shall he sold or transferred except to the State.” That is being explained to mean that the State shall be the sole land agent, which is a palpable deception. It means nothing of the kind and the men who give the explanation know that. The people ought to resent the attempts now l>eing made to deceive them on this important subject of land policy.